Opinion

US veto on calls for a ceasefire left UN conducting a dialogue with the deaf

The General Assembly session on Tuesday, which produced an overwhelming majority of 153 votes in favour of a ceasefire, is likely to strain tensions further

A woman mourns as she sees the bodies of Palestinians killed in an airstrike on Tuesday in Khan Younis, Gaza. Photo by Ahmad Hasaballah/Getty Images

Alanna O’Malley
Wed Dec 13 2023 - 06:15

United Nations secretary general António Guterres invoked Article 99 of the UN Charter to mandate a stronger response from the Security Council to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza on December 6th – his first time to do so during his tenure. In a public letter, Guterres, who has been unusually outspoken about the Israeli strikes against the people of Gaza since the Hamas attack of October 7th, warned that “the situation is fast deteriorating into a catastrophe with potentially irreversible implications for Palestinians as a whole and for peace and security in the region”. In the resulting debate in the council last Friday, the United States vetoed the draft resolution proposing a ceasefire. This is the first time Article 99 has been defeated by a veto and now the question can be asked, is the UN out of options?

Article 99 of the charter gives the secretary general the power to bring to the attention of the security council any issue that threatens international peace and security, but it has rarely been used. Despite being one of the strongest powers of the office, until last week the provision had been invoked just six times since 1960. The hesitation in using it can be explained by various factors, not least the controversial history of its implementation, which has a particular resonance in Ireland.

This charter provision was called upon for the first time in 1960 by then secretary general Dag Hammarskjöld, who used it to mandate a peacekeeping force for Congo, which had just gained independence from Belgium. The historical parallels are striking. Hammarskjöld’s invocation of Article 99 was also based on the fear that the conflict that had erupted between the Belgians and the Congolese would have severe consequences for the Congolese people, the process of decolonisation and peace and security across the African continent. However, the peacekeeping force that was created, to which Ireland contributed troops, was very quickly mired in controversy leading to the loss of dozens of peacekeepers, among them 26 Irish soldiers, and the moral and financial bankruptcy of the organisation.

The UN’s experience in Congo deterred successive secretaries general from interventionism and use of the powers of the office under Articles 99-100. This helps to explain its lack of implementation in successive years. The question is why Guterres has invoked his powers now? And since the draft resolution it produced has been vetoed, what does it mean for the UN?

READ MORE

Guterres’s use of Article 99 represented an effort to build legitimacy through public support for stronger action by the UN. Last Friday’s draft resolution, which was co-sponsored by 97 countries including Ireland, was designed to build a consensus for a longer ceasefire and strengthen the humanitarian response. Moreover, it increases public attention on the policies of the five permanent members (Britain, China, France, Russia and the US), particularly the US, which has been accused of double standards after vetoing the draft resolution on Friday.

The US veto in the face of 13 votes in favour and one abstention (from Britain) signals the growing isolation of the country from other members over this issue. The move was widely condemned and creates the impression that the US is the only country standing in the way of concerted calls for a ceasefire. In a statement to the security council on Friday, US ambassador Robert Wood reiterated his country’s position that it would not vote for a resolution that did not condemn the Hamas attack. The US is making clear it will not bend to pressure from the secretary general or the UN.

So where does that leave the organisation in its efforts to bring an end to the Israeli bombardment of Gaza and its people? The huge support for the resolution among the cosponsors, and positive votes from other security council members, subsequently moved the issue to the General Assembly. There, Egypt and Mauritania called an emergency meeting, which was held on Tuesday and during which states pressed for a resolution.

While Ireland and other like-minded states voted in favour, it was striking that there were a host of European countries among the abstentions, including Britain, while Austria, Czechia and the US voted against the resolution

However, the approach of the US - combined with the absence of some European powers such as Germany, and the Netherlands as co-sponsors of Friday’s resolution - points to the growing cleavage between the West and the Global South on this question.

The General Assembly session on Tuesday, which produced an overwhelming majority of 153 votes in favour of a ceasefire, is likely to strain tensions further.

The EU position remains deeply divided. While Ireland and other like-minded states voted in favour, it was striking that there were a host of European countries among the abstentions including Britain, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, and Ukraine while Austria, Czechia and the US voted against the resolution.

This highlights even further the hypocrisy of some Western powers who decry the inviolability of international law in the Russian aggression against Ukraine but remain painfully silent in the face of Israeli abuses.

Although Guterres’s invocation of Article 99 was certainly a clarion call to action, now the General Assembly must produce some tangible result from this strong vote, otherwise he will have exhausted the powers of his office to no avail, further highlighting the impotency of the UN.

Previous attempts to assert the authority of the UN under Article 99 have proved disastrous. The General Assembly resolution highlights the dissonance between the two organs. Whether or not this proves to be a turning point that will provide a ceasefire and prevent further loss of life, in the process reifying the relevance of the UN, or confirm criticisms of its irrelevance and ineffectiveness, remains to be seen.

Dr Alanna O’Malley is associate professor of international history at Leiden University in the Netherlands

LATEST STORIES